[a]gnostic people are dishonest?

I don't KNOW that there is no monster in Loch Ness, but I do not BELIEVE there is one.

Both positions are mutually consistent.

I can (in theory) drain the loch , at which point I would (I expect) cease to be agnostic on the matter. I would continue to believe there was no monster. I would also know that my belief was correct.

I feel much the same about gods, but see no immediate possibility of a test.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I don't KNOW that there is no monster in Loch Ness, but I do not BELIEVE there is one.

...

I feel much the same about gods, but see no immediate possibility of a test.
Click to expand...


Therein lies the problem. Claims for monsters are rather mundane, but atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism/deism/theism/pastafarianism... are all claims about the fundamental nautre of the universe. It's something about which we currently lack knowledge. We can debate about whether a photo represents a monster or a pile of flotsam, but we don't know some of the "whys" of the universe, or even if asking "why" is relevant!

I say, call yourself neither atheist nor theist, but watch what physics has to say over the coming centuries. ;)
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
I can (in theory) drain the loch , at which point I would (I expect) cease to be agnostic on the matter.
Click to expand...

In your example, you were formerly a lake-monster agnostic. You had no knowledge, although you believed there was not one.

My question is - what about the people who believed there was one? Weren't they agnostics as well, since they couldn't claim knowledge either?

Translating this back to the God question, isn't each and every person an agnostic?
 
Jimbo07 said:
Really? Show me the math. ;)
Click to expand...
Math Symbol.jpg
There ya go, Math.
I'm not a Theist, nor even a Deist, but it's the strong atheist position that is the dishonest one (ETA: I've edited this statement more than once. Is it possible that this is less dishonest than the Theist position?). These A-A debates at JREF have convinced me to adopt the title of agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the least dishonest approach (ETA: I think), while atheism signals with whom my sympathies lie...
Click to expand...
Well stated, and clear.

DR
 
CurtC said:
My question is - what about the people who believed there was one? Weren't they agnostics as well, since they couldn't claim knowledge either?

Translating this back to the God question, isn't each and every person an agnostic?
Click to expand...

That's essentially my position. They're claiming knowledge about the fundamental nature of the universe that they do not have.*

People are agnostic whether they wish to be or not! :D However, they'll argue that they do know (because of "the Word" on one side, or because "God people are liars" on the other), which is why agnosticism is considered a position as part of the debate, rather than regarded as a simple fact.

* ETA: One position I do consider honest is that of some thoughtful theists I have met. Essentially, it goes something like: God is not physically provable, so I choose faith. A cynic might respond that Narnia is not physically provable, so I choose to eat this potato, but meh. It says nothing about knowledge or facts.
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
In your example, you were formerly a lake-monster agnostic. You had no knowledge, although you believed there was not one.

My question is - what about the people who believed there was one? Weren't they agnostics as well, since they couldn't claim knowledge either?

Translating this back to the God question, isn't each and every person an agnostic?
Click to expand...

I think that's true, up to a point. I think in practice, everyone who calls themselves an agnostic is one - and if they don't, they aren't. It's not so much a matter of belief - I'm not sure what it means precisely to believe something - but a matter of allegiance.
 
westprog said:
I think that's true, up to a point. I think in practice, everyone who calls themselves an agnostic is one - and if they don't, they aren't.
Click to expand...

But if the rule is that an agnostic is simply a person who uses the term to refer to himself, then does agnostic have any objective meaning?

According to the standard definition, everyone who calls himself an agnostic is one - and if he doesn't, he still is one. That's not a very useful term, but it's also not very useful to simply say that an agnostic is anyone who calls himself one.

I already had the impression that the term isn't very practical, and in this discussion I'm coming down more solidly on that position.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I don't think it can be complete without somebody publishing that big long table of every possible belief position about God, without a single mention of a definition of God.
Click to expand...
Or we could make our own...

Theist - one who believes in god(s)
Deist - one who believes in non-interfering god(s)
Pantheist - one who believes everything is god
Pottheist - one who believes, like, everything is god, man...y'know? I mean, think about it [cough]
Atheist - one who does not believe in god(s)
Aaaaatheist - one who does not believe in the Fonz
Gnostic - one who believes it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Agnostic - one who does not believe it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Naustic - one who is just sick of the discussion
 
To be a skeptic is to eschew certainty, so the idea of understanding that a claim may not be true seems the intellectually more appropriate stance to take while at the same time, as skeptics we must also default to non-assent (or lack of belief, if you will) until we have some reason for a belief. And yes, it is all to easy to equivocate "belief that" with "belief in."

According to the vast majority of theological history, wielding Aristotelian logic, it was generally accepted that if one was not actively engaged in believing, then one is actively engaged in disbelieving. Av~A (exclusive "or"). An active, volitional dichotomy of sorts. That's what happens when you let people with a vested interest in polarizing others control the language. According to traditional theism, if you are not a believer, you are an atheist - straight up. There is no "agnosticism." For more sophisticated mindsets, whether unbelief is an active or passive state is an open question. In effect, we are questioning the application of Av~A (exclusive "or"). So, much hinges on whether one understands one's state of belief, more precisely the lack thereof, to be a passive or active state. We have seen plenty of text on these forums about whether the default human state is belief or lack thereof.

At the same time, the concept of god is such that it will never be verifiable/refutable. From a denotative point of view the existence/non-existence of god is unknowable in principle. That assuming, of course, one considers knowledge as having some sort of external referent. Recognition of this linguistic legerdemain, seems sufficient cause to suspend belief until something a little more substantial comes along - in particular a concept more amenable to rational discussion. To assign evaluative terms like "honest" or "dishonest" to people who have different belief-states about an inherently unknowable concept seems to me to express more about the user of those words than about the subject of their use. I suspect a confusion between deceived and actively dishonest. Is it, after all, possible to state something in error without being dishonest? One would think so.

There's more at work here...

For your amusement.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Or we could make our own...

Theist - one who believes in god(s)
Deist - one who believes in non-interfering god(s)
Pantheist - one who believes everything is god
Pottheist - one who believes, like, everything is god, man...y'know? I mean, think about it [cough]
Atheist - one who does not believe in god(s)
Aaaaatheist - one who does not believe in the Fonz
Gnostic - one who believes it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Agnostic - one who does not believe it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Naustic - one who is just sick of the discussion
Click to expand...
Not a bad list, but you missed my religeous persuasion:

Apathetic - doesn't care enough about the question to get wrapped up in it.
 
Last edited:
Vim Razz said:
Not a bad list, but you missed my religeous persuasion:

Apathetic - doesn't care enough about the question to get wrapped up in it.
Click to expand...

I had another term for it (couldntcarelesstic), but I like yours better.:D
 
dglas said:
According to traditional theism, if you are not a believer, you are an atheist - straight up. There is no "agnosticism."
Click to expand...
I agree that if you're not a believer, you're an atheist. Agnosticism is a separate question.


At the same time, the concept of god is such that it will never be verifiable/refutable. From a denotative point of view the existence/non-existence of god is unknowable in principle.
Click to expand...
Why? If he existed, couldn't God just show himself to us tomorrow morning?
 
Vim Razz said:
Not a bad list, but you missed my religeous persuasion:

Apathetic - doesn't care enough about the question to get wrapped up in it.
Click to expand...
It was on there originally, under another section I had entitled "Modifiers" which also included ardent, ambivalent, and ambidextrous. I decided to remove it, though, since I felt Naustic deserved to be the final entry.
 
Ocelot said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you not understand what I meant by NOT REAL!

IF they're not real they're MADE UP - who made them up?
Click to expand...
Who cares? Made up things are by principle made up. I have damn good evidence teapots exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom